Well, I have read the bible extensively, both old and new testament. I could probably stretch my imagination far enough to find a parallel or two between some of the old testament beliefs and Satanism, but new testament? I really have no idea what version of the bible you are reading, or what sort of eisegesis one would have to apply, to lead to the conclusion that the new testament can be interpreted as 'one and the same' with Satanism. (I assume you mean actual Satanism, not the devil worshiping crap. If you are talking about devil worship you have essentially said nothing, so I will assume you aren't)

I really have no idea what version of the bible you are reading, or what sort of eisegesis one would have to apply, to lead to the conclusion that the new testament can be interpreted as 'one and the same' with Satanism.

New testament, version from 1950. It is not the whole book has a satanic influence. Just like I said before, SOME quotes. Like it is easy to see in the very beginning of the new testament Jesus isn't actually preaching to "give your soul to god". Or to "pray and spread god's word". He is only telling people they should start thinking, taking their lives into their own hands. Only thing is, within time priests changed much of the aspects and made most of the things up. Thus indoctrinating people and making them believe something else. I'll make a topic later on about it maybe some things will become more clear then.

Quote:

And as a side note, why do you feel christians are your enemy?

I don't see them as ennemies. I only used the sentence as some sort way of thinking. As like starting a discussion. Before I start I always look up some things about the subject to refresh my mind, and try to get some depth about my "opponent". Makes most things easier.

There are a quite a few parts in the New Testament that are genuine wisdom that can sometimes even be interpreted in a somewhat "Satanic" sense, such as thinking for yourself, questioning authority (including doing away with irrational dogmas), and being true to your nature. (although, the "love thy neighbor" deal and the entire idea of "Salvation" are entirely contradictory to the objectivist-psuedooccult-secular-epicurian-social-darwinist idea today we give the label "Satanism.")

However, it is difficult to discern what "Christ's true message" was because it was obviously skewed by the authors of the gospels to suit their own agendas. They were not concerned with giving a realistic historical account of Jesus, but rather to portray a flawless idealistic mouthpiece for the message of what they believed to be "Christianity"... and that would better bolster the image of Jesus as "the Christ", which would also serve their goal as well to gain support from the Jewish population.

As far as Satanism goes, I have seen some poets and occultists express occasional admiration for "Satan" or "Satanic qualities", but I have never actually heard of anyone actually calling themselves "Satanists" or exalting Satan religiously prior to the late 60s. (aside from the bogus claims of groups like the OFS, ONA, and other "traditional" sects) I could be wrong, though.

Since he probably never existed in the first place, at least not in the context he is presented in the bible, his 'true message' was left in the hands of the authors. The closest thing to a historical jesus we have is scant evidence for a 'Rebi Yehushua' who was an orthodox Jewish Rabi from the period with a rather large following. This man bears little to no resemblance to jesus of the gospels. (which incidentally were written LONG after the 'historical jesus' would have died. (50-200 years approximately)

And I agree if you pick and choose certain 'soundbites' from the bible you can make the jesus character sound Satanic or even like a Satanist..But I would imagine you could do that to anybody if you listened long enough. Taken as a whole there is nothing Satanic about the new testament, unless you count it's intended purpose as given by Constantine. (uniting and controlling the plebes)

As far as Satanism goes, I have seen some poets and occultists express occasional admiration for "Satan" or "Satanic qualities", but I have never actually heard of anyone actually calling themselves "Satanists" or exalting Satan religiously prior to the late 60s. (aside from the bogus claims of groups like the OFS, ONA, and other "traditional" sects) I could be wrong, though.

Baudelaire, Rops and a couple of others might come closest to something that could be called satanic but it was more an "art-episode". Great in what they did but I wouldn't really call them satanists as we have in mind.

The problem is hindsight bias when trying to find satanists, satanic qualities or satanic movements in the past and it makes us vulnerable to interpreting it in a positive -to us- manner. When taking some distance from things and using an objective perspective, as far as sources and science allow us, most things satanic aren't that satanic, even the satanic lore can be traced back into things very non-satanic.

I agree Diavolo. Baudelaire and others were about as close as I could come to expressing a "satanic (small S) ideal in the musty dusties, but you're right. They could hardly be considered SATANIC as we would define the term even loosely today.

Today's Satanism bears very little resemblence to anything that has come before.

When taking some distance from things and using an objective perspective, as far as sources and science allow us, most things satanic aren't that satanic, even the satanic lore can be traced back into things very non-satanic.

Sounds logic to me, most things we call "satanic" actually are nothing more then natural instincts/forces/ideas who are denied by certain religions.

Modern Satanism is a product of "our" time.To me it seems, in many ways, to be the slightly darker side of New Age Religion.A mishmash of old ideas, liberated from the crumbles left behind by great thinkers of yore, all wrapped up in glossy paper with a pink ribbon round it.Packaging...

To call Modern Satanism; Satanism, is in my view pure vanity. An attempt to bring stasis into what MUST be constantly under scrutiny and attack.The word dogmatic comes to mind...

I see Satanism in Jesus, the Nazaree.Thoughtful kinda guy, the controversy of his convictions seems to be seeping out from the borders of heavily edited text.Dont like him much, but I have little against the guy.

Satanism is at its best when it is at its most catalytic. You can argue there was "Satanism" before the Church of Satan, and there are those who will agree with you as well as those who will disagree. History is history. We use it as a yardstick against which to measure like events in a different timeline. Of course, comparing the "satanic" movement in France with Catherine Monvoisin (La Voisin) in the 1600's against The Church of Satan in even the mid 1960's is like comparing apples to oranges. There are similarities, there are characteristics of personality that might coincide on some level, but really, one has very little to do with another. The one thing you can see is that each is a catalyst for development and movement within the overall umbrella of "Satanism."

Now, say what you will about the Church of Satan as it is today. I might probably agree with you. It's a pale reflection of that which those of us in the 1960-1990's knew. How could it not be? There's a new Sheriff in town and his name is Gilmore. I'm paraphrasing here, but someone's said that the Church of Satan is driven by whomever is High Priest. Give that man a inverted gold star.

The Church of Satan under Anton LaVey as I knew it was catalytic. People loved it and people hated it, but it caused people to MOVE. There were groups that formed like The Church of Satanic Liberation, The Temple of Set, offshoots of The Process (Church of the Final Judgement,) and others, all inspired by or set up as direct competition to The Church of Satan. And it's continued until today with easy access and easy constructed E Churches to be found by the thousands on the internet.

You can almost look at The Church of Satan as the "Big Bang" of any true Satanic movement within the century. Love them or hate them, they were the only real game in town, and they played that game well. After the "great schism" that led to the creation of The Temple of Set, also opened were the flood gates for the creation of more and more pretenders to the throne, wannabes and flim flam men in devil's horns. The Church of Satan was no longer front and center.

The Church of Satan was the first such entity to recognize that even as the catalyst, there would always be "something new."

"The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it toward material success - to rend the rusty padlocks of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories and ideas that have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors may now mean slavery, destruction and dishonor to us!" The Satanic Bible Book of Satan II

That applied not only to the Church of Satan's emergence, but also a call for others to build upon what was brought about by the catalytic force that was the emergence of Satanism in 1966 C.E. There's no FAILURE in that a myriad of other thoughts began to stir in other minds, getting us to the place we are today. I see it as a joyful validation of the "satanic spirit," that spark of inspiration, coupled with a shitload of dedication that keeps the Church of Satan's catalytic "big bang" ever expanding and ever growing.

Sure. There are a lot of flakes out there. Most "satanic churches" are now little more that one or two people with a Macintosh or a Gatesmobile, ripping off graphics to make a slick web site. But there are dedicated people out there who are still working on the left hand side of the road as well. As the satanic movement we saw in the 60's matures and ages, who's to say we won't see a grand resurgence of someone with the vision and the charisma to REALLY bring it together.

To date, I haven't seen anyone fitting the bill. But who knows. I have a few years left on this orb. My only advice to those willing to follow those who offer you Hell on a cracker is, "Caveat Emptor - Let the buyer beware."

Personally I believe, as well as many other satanists do I'm sure, that Satan is just a mascot of the things we love, indulging ourselves and destroying our enemies. I doubt id ever meet a big red guy with horns just as much as i doubt id meet a big old white guy in robes. Satan simply represents what is against most people's ideas of right and wrong.

As a spiritual force, I'm not much into calling on spirits or demons.

_________________________
My God & I are one & the same, We have the same face we have the same name.

The reason that I don’t see much possibility for the emergence of a powerful, solid Satanic leader, the type of person that would rival even LaVey, is because I don’t believe that such a person would feel the need to create a church or a following of any kind.

I have met a few (very few) people, who practically mesmerized me with their charm, intellect, personal drive, financial success (achieved on their own by bringing all of their characteristics together), and most of all, how they were able to live their lives so freely and independently of everyone’s rules and games, that it would make most “Satanists” drool with envy.

These few people, don’t need words and philosophies or titles to start a movement, because they are living the life which Satanists generally talk about. In other words, while most Bullshit talks, these individuals actually live the life style, without giving it a title, or feeling the need to discuss their philosophies. They could afford a Satanic campaign, and easily attract followers, as well as afford to finance the building of physical “Satanic type” buildings (churches).However, why would they want to do it? They are already surrounded by other people who are living the life style as well, and already have people who look up to them, and are willing to serve just about every whim they might have.

These people don’t dress in capes, and perform destruction rituals against their enemies, but instead wear business suits (if they so desire), and if need be, destroy their enemies using their brain, connections, finances, and power.They live anywhere on the globe (earth) where they wish, and live in a way, where very few others can have influence or rules set on them.

These people, who could so easily form a “church,” will not be doing so, but instead, they do just about anything that it takes, to NOT be in the public eye, since their ego’s are already stroked to the max, by their own success, and their privacy ensures the continuation of said success.

_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Sure. There are a lot of flakes out there. Most "satanic churches" are now little more that one or two people with a Macintosh or a Gatesmobile, ripping off graphics to make a slick web site.

Actually they're all horrid pieces of shit... made with ugly outdated graphics and crude 90's-era angelfire layouts. I've been tempted to start my own E-Cult just so I can make a satanic website that DOESN'T suck.

Anyways, Satanism as a philosophy doesn't need any central church or authority, because it is inherently individualistic by nature. That said, if anything like that does arise, it will probably be a theistic movement.